9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged separately under debit notes which are like invoices, it cannot be said that the freight and insurance charges were not being separately charged. Therefore, the impugned order upholding the Central Excise duty demand on the freight and insurance charges is not sustainable and has to be set aside. However, dharmada charges are includible in the assessable value and as such there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on this point. - Decision in the cae of CCE vs. Panchmukhi Engg. Works [2002 (11) TMI 122 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 6130 of 2004 - Final Order No. 50664/2014 - Dated:- 5-2-2014 - Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30th July 2004 allowed the appeals and confirmed both the demands totalling Rs. 2,70,097/- and beside this, also imposed penalty on them under Rule 173Q. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Jatin Singhal, Advocate and Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate, the learned Counsels for the appellant, pleaded that transit insurance charges and freight charges were not includible in the assessable value, that in respect of the period prior to 01/07/2000, there was a specific provision - sub-Section (2) for Section 4 providing for exclusion of the freight charges from the assessable valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Madras vs. CCE, Madras (supra) and that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). With regard to freight and transit insurance, he pleaded that since the same have not been shown separately in the invoices, in view of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the same have to be included in the assessable value. As regards dharmada charges, he cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE vs. Panchmukhi Engg. Works reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 550 (S.C.), wherein the Apex court relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the freight and insurance charges were not being separately charged. Therefore, the impugned order upholding the Central Excise duty demand on the freight and insurance charges is not sustainable and has to be set aside. 7. As regards dharmada charges, we find that first judgment of the Tribunal on this issue was in the case of Mohan Co., Madras vs. CCE, Madras (supra), the civil appeal against which was dismissed by the Apex court. The Tribunal s subsequent judgment on this issue in the case of Associated Soapstone Distributing Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore (supra) relies upon its earlier judgment in the case of Mohan Co., Madras vs. CCE, Madras (supra) and while dismissing the civil appeal against this judgment, the Apex cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
